Terrorism: The Difficulty Of Defining The Term

Terrorism, in layperson's language, can be defined as a threat or action designed to intimidate or influence the public. In simplest of the language, any act which involves killings of civilians by non-state actors could be defined as terrorism. Many scholars have tried to define the term. Chomsky, for instance, defines it as a use of coercive means aimed at the civilian population to achieve political, religious, or other aims. One state’s terrorism is another state’s resurgence; hence, no official definition is held to be definitive. Attempts have been made to come to a common ground, but that has always met with resistance from opposing quarters.

I.                Evolution Of Definition Of Terrorism As A Term By The International Community

The word “terrorism” was first coined in the 1790s during Robespierre’s led Jacobin Party’s “Reign of Terror”, in which mass executions took place in the form of the guillotine. In the 20th century, Article 1 and Article 2 of the League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism tried to define terrorism, but it never came into force. The United Nations first focused on defining terrorism after the massacre of the Munich Olympics of 1972. There were also various sectoral conventions of the United Nations such as the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism proposed in 1996, attempting to define “terrorism”. In 1999, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1269 unanimously, which “unequivocally condemn[ed] all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation”. The real push came after the dastardly 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre Building by Al-Qaeda. A comprehensive definition of “terrorism” was required to set responsibilities. 

II.             Dilemma To Define: What Constitutes Terrorism?

There are very few terms in international law that seem to be as difficult to define as “terrorism”. After the infamous 9/11 attacks and then President Bush’s Global War on Terror (GWOT), the meaning has been twisted and turned to create an element of confusion to exercise the will of greater powers over the smaller ones by authorising attacks, legitimising them or blocklisting an unfavourable regime by applying sanctions or restrictions. Following are some of the dilemmas with examples which arose due to the broad-based interpretation of terrorism:

II.I State vs. Non-State Actors: 

The dilemma here lies in whether terrorism as a concept should apply in a similar manner to state actors and non-state actors. For example, consider Syria: should the actions of the Syrian regime against its minority Kurdish population and the actions of non-state actors like ISIL/ISIS against the regime and its people be evaluated and addressed under one definition of “terrorism” or treated as distinct categories?

II.II Right to Self Determination vs. Terrorism: 

Should a group like Hamas, which is duly etched in the spirits of Palestinians when conducting attacks against occupied territories to combat Israeli troops (foreign occupation in the eyes of Palestinians), be treated as terrorism or a movement for right to self-determination? Should the infamous October 7th, 2023, attack to be viewed as a terrorist activity or a liberation act?

II.III Activities of National Armed Forces During a Conflict:

For instance, consider the response of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to the October 7th, 2023, attack. Under the provisions of international law and the exceptions to the use of force, what defines the limits of the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter? If that doctrine, in total or partial manner, is flouted by the country exercising self-defence (in this case Israel), would it constitute an act of terrorism?

II.IV Potential Use of Nuclear Weapons by National Armed Forces:

Russia, for instance, has opted to exit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and tested an intercontinental ballistic missile designed to carry nuclear warheads recently. Given the country's ongoing war with Ukraine, should this act be viewed as a terrorist activity, considering the effects a nuclear war can have if Russia decides to pursue one in future?

III.           State Sponsored Cross Border Terrorism

The state-sponsored cross-border violent activities come in a different category altogether. These activities partake the character of terrorism for the host country but, the one perpetuating it clandestinely denies having any participation in promoting these groups, whereas secretly ensuring their breeding with the help of the state machinery. The prime example is India’s Pahalgam massacre of April 22nd by The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan based group and a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). LeT’s prime objective is to integrate Kashmir into Pakistan for which it has taken the recourse of extreme violence within Indian territories.  Whereas Pakistan has openly been hand in gloves with LeT and its leadership, efforts to quell the activities of TRF were only sought after the USA designated it as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organisation).

The conflict in the North Kivu and Ituri provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo has engulfed the country into utter chaos. The main perpetrator is the Rwanda backed rebels, M23. The mineral rich provinces and the ability of M23 to keep the FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) at bay has been cited as Rwanda’s motive to interfere in the conflict. Rwanda considers the group an existential threat as the FDLR includes Hutu exiles, some of whom were involved in the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis. Rwanda accuses the DRC of supporting the FDLR and calling for its neutralisation as a prerequisite for regional peace.

IV.           Difficulty In Defining Terrorism

As seen by these examples above, the clandestine nature of terrorism makes it extremely hard to define. A definition of “terrorism” must consider the context in which it is being presented or put. One must consider differences in actors (states, paramilitary groups, etc.) that could fall under a definition of the term. Additionally, other forms of political violence often overlap with the basic features of terrorism. Brian Jenkins, one of the first researchers in the field of terrorism has addressed the definition problem as the “Bermuda Triangle of Terrorism”, as even experts can’t agree on a definition and big conferences get bogged down in definitional debates.  Because of this, the term is used merely as rhetoric without a clear legal definition to support it, opening the door to applying double standards.  

V.  Looking Beyond Definitions

Establishing a strict definition of “terrorism” is ultimately futile- as it only complicates how we interpret that definition in real-world situations. Highly contextual and subjective and fraught with personal (of individuals and nations) biases, it is impossible to formulate one single definition of terrorism. The majority of effective anti-terrorist action has been thwarted by the claim of the famous quip that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. However, some major distinguishing factors between legitimate resistance and terrorism can be:

V.I Targeting of Civilians

A core distinction lies in the deliberate targeting of non-combatants. Legitimate resistance, under international humanitarian law, aims at military targets whereas terrorism often involves targeting of civilians to instil fear and achieve political goals. 

V.II Methods of Necessity and Proportionality

The UN Charter specifically states that even in legitimate resistance, the means employed must adhere to principles of necessity and proportionality. Terrorist acts frequently involve unprovoked extreme violence and disregard for human life, exceeding what could be considered necessary or proportionate in a conflict.

V.III Adherence to International Humanitarian Law

Legitimate resistance movements generally strive to adhere to the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions whereas, terrorist groups operate outside established norms of armed conflict.

V.IV Motivation and Goals

Legitimate resistance often focuses on self-determination, liberation from occupation, or defence against aggression whereas terrorism may pursue broader, often ideological goals, mostly involving indiscriminate violence to achieve them. 

V.V The Status of the combatants

Legitimate combatants often have a form of uniform or are part of an organized group. Terrorists often operate in non-uniform, and can be part of small cells.

In the absence of a strict definition, it is in prudence to know the not-so-herculean task of acknowledging the difference between liberation and submission and that is where the line needs to be drawn. Instead of defining the term precisely, I suggest that we focus on strengthening enforcement mechanisms that quell these activities and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.